Thread: Sig p227
View Single Post
  #9  
Old 09-09-2013, 05:20 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
I think it's also a matter of need. Anyone who truly needed a better sidearm like aviators and special warfare units already got better pistols. I guess whoever was left didn't really have a pressing need.

What was the reasoning behind moving the safety on the Beretta 92 up to the slide? I know the army had a long-time hard-on for the Walther P38, but the frame-mounted safety just seems to make more sense ergonomically and intuitively.
The slide mounted safety allows for a really simple and reliable firing pin safety. Turning the safety to the on position rotates a piece that contains the separate rear portion of the firing pin (think they call it a transfer pin), meaning that if the hammer falls with the safety on there is no possible way for it to hit the firing pin. The first Beretta variant that had the slide safety was the S though and I don't think they did the firing pin block until the SB, so I'm not sure what the original reason was. It may have been easier to make a safety/decocker rather than a plain safety work on the slide rather than the frame, but Taurus manage it with their newer guns so it's a mystery to me.
Reply With Quote